Car traffic fundamentally isn't scalable in urban areas. The only failure on the part of city planners is attempting to accomodate that kind of selfish, wasteful behavior.
Cars ruin the amenity of your city. Space taken up with roads and parking can't be used for anything else, and cars are dangerous to be in or around. If you know that, and still choose to drive, then you are, to some extent, selfish.
Also, owning house and yard is a selfish waste of space compared to living apartments, but I don't hear too many people complaining. If a city were to say "NO CARS, TOO MUCH SPACE WASTED", then they might as well say "NO HOUSES OR YARDS, TOO MUCH SPACE SELFISHLY WASTED ON PERSON", but if I have the means and it is for sale, what is the issue? Not serving my fellow man with my purchase? Eh, count me in the selfish category permanently.
As a matter of public policy, owning a house with a yard isn't really subsidized. Buying is subsidized over renting, but that's an indirect thing at best. But cars are massively subsidized.
I think it's actually a bit more selfish to want people to give up their earned conveniences to satisfy your own particular desires, in this case, making the city 'how it should be', when it clearly works fairly well the way it is. Saying cities are 'ruined' by cars is hyperbole and guilt-based rhetoric, plain and simple.
Agreed, no accidental deaths/smog if everyone walked/biked, but that doesn't mean city+cars aren't accomplishing their job of A to B. It isn't the cleanest or safest way, but I don't think he argued "greater good" so much as "good enough". If these were deal-breaker issues for everyone, then people would walk/bike instead of use cars (or just leave the city), but clearly cars are a definite "want" item.
Which is to say, yeah, I suppose we're selfish, but then again, owning property is selfish, comrade.
It's questionable to base public policy on individual choices when the costs of those choices are socialized and the benefits of those choices are privatized.
Idealistically sound, but not realistic. Roads and cars exist to meet a need (individual mobility and mass transit, primarily). At this time, that need also serves the public, and it is disingenuous to say that roads only benefit those with cars. Perhaps some good public transit systems will come along one day that can make a meaningful dent in the amount of people who need to own cars. I'm still waiting for those systems, but I won't be holding my breath.
Also, as an aside, try riding a bike about 5 ~ 10 miles when it's 105 degrees out (pretty common where I live), or even hovering around zero (fairly common where I used to live). It's not fun, nor is it practical. It's a big part of why nobody does it.
> Perhaps some good public transit systems will come along one day that can make a meaningful dent in the amount of people who need to own cars. I'm still waiting for those systems, but I won't be holding my breath.
They exist in most of the developed world; North America is the major exception. All that's required to create them here is good public policy, which was the topic to begin with.
